Sunday, September 02, 2007

A Blanket Boycott of Israel??

Following the war in Lebanon where the Israeli army failed in spite of its barbaric actions, and the new more recent barbaric attacks on Gaza which are aimed at bringing down the Palestinian elected government, many honest people around the word who are aware of what is going on in the Occupied Territories, want to support the struggle against Israeli oppression.

This is the background to the growing movement to "boycott Israel". This Wednesday Britain's University and College Union (UCU) voted to promote a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, protesting Israel's policy on the Palestinians. The vote was preceded by a heated discussion in which Israel was repeatedly referred to as an apartheid state, engaging in crimes against humanity in the occupied territories. The motion was approved by a 158 to 99 vote, and called for freezing European funding for Israeli academic institutions, while condemning "Israeli academia's cooperation with the occupation.

The movement to boycott Israel is not limited to Britain. Last year the largest union in Canada the Ontario division of Canada's largest union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) voted to support the international campaign that is boycotting Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Now we are informed that South Africa's largest trade union, the Congress of South African Trade Unions also seeks to boycott Israel. The president of the Congress of COSATU, Willy Madisha, announced the launching of the campaign last week in Johannesburg, calling on the government to boycott all Israeli goods and cease all diplomatic relations with Israel after its attacks on Palestinian leaders.

"The best way to have Israel comply with United Nations resolutions is to pressure it by a diplomatic boycott such as the one imposed on apartheid South Africa," Madisha said. COSATU belongs to a recently-formed coalition of organizations operating under the banner "End The Occupation". This runs contrary to South Africa's official stance, and to President Thabo Mbeki's decision to strengthen trade ties with Israel. Mbeki, who heads the ANC ruling party, even appeared as a guest at Israel's Independence Day celebrations in Durban last month.

The supporters of the Israeli ruling class are very upset of course and are try to accuse the growing International movement in support of the boycott of being Anti-Semitic. Israel's ambassador to Britain, Zvi Hefetz, responded to the UCU's resolution by saying that the resolution was offensive to Britain's Jewish community. "Its slanted phrasing reeks of ignorance," he added. Adrian Fronda, a senior mathematics lecturer who had joined the union solely to vote against the boycott, was less diplomatic. "I came here to oppose the prevalent anti-Semitism we see all around us here," he said. Israeli Education Minister Yuli Tamir condemned the British union's decision, saying she would address the British education minister on the matter, and the chairman of the Committee of University Heads, Professor Moshe Kaveh, called on British scientists to continue conducting joint projects with Israeli scientists.

The supporters of the Israeli ruling class are the last ones who can complain about boycott. Last year the Israeli liberal journalist Gidon Levi, in his article titled "With a little help from the outside", pointing out to their cynicism replied to them:

"The laugh of fate: The state waging a broad international campaign for a boycott is simultaneously waging a parallel campaign, no less determined, against a boycott. A boycott that seriously harms the lives of millions of people is legitimate in its eyes because it is directed against those defined as its enemies, while a boycott that is liable to hurt its academic ivory tower is illegitimate in its eyes only because it is aimed against itself. This is a moral double standard. Why is the boycott campaign against the Palestinian Authority, including blocking essential economic aid and boycotting leaders elected in democratic and legal elections, a permissible measure in Israel's eyes and the boycott of its universities is forbidden?

"Israel cannot claim the boycott weapon is illegitimate. It makes extensive use of this weapon itself, and its victims are suffering under severe conditions of deprivation, from Rafah to Jenin. In the past, Israel called upon the world to boycott Yasser Arafat, and now it is calling for a boycott of the Hamas government - and via this government, all of the Palestinians in the territories. And Israel does not regard this as an ethical problem. Tens of thousands have not received their salaries for four months due to the boycott, but when there is a call to boycott Israeli universities, the boycott suddenly becomes an illegitimate weapon." (Gidon Levi, Haaretz, June 4, 2005)

The supporters of the oppression of the Palestinian are trying to hide the role of the Israeli academic institutions in helping the Israeli war machine and propaganda. Most academics and intellectuals in Israel have never condemned the Nakba - the massive dispossession and ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by Zionists around 1948, transforming close to 800,000 Palestinians into refugees. Nor are they supporting the right of return of the refugees. Nor have they condemned Israeli boycotting of other countries like Cuba for instance. Israeli universities - all government controlled - have not only been complicit in justification of various aspects of the occupation, but have also directly participated in acts of robbery of the occupied Palestinians.

The Hebrew University has been engaged in expropriating lands and expelling their Palestinian owners in occupied East Jerusalem. Tel Aviv University (TAU) refuses to date to acknowledge the fact that it sits on top of an ethnically cleansed Palestinian village. Some of TAU's departments are also organically linked to the military and intelligence establishment.

Bar Ilan University not only operates a campus on the illegal colony of Ariel near Nablus, but has also awarded Ariel Sharon an honorary doctorate for his role in the March 2002 reoccupation of Palestinian cities, which witnessed atrocities in Jenin and Nablus as well as the destruction and indiscriminate killings in all the major Palestinian cities and refugee camps in the West bank. Ben Gurion University has supported in various ways the discrimination of the Bedouins in the Negev.

Haifa University not only employs one of the most racist academics in Israel, Professor Arnon Sofer, who relentlessly and influentially provides academic justification for ethnically cleansing Palestinians - including citizens of Israel but the University has itself sponsored a wide campaign attempting to cover up a Zionist massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura, near Haifa, during the Nakba, and went through motions to fire, discredit or silence Professor Ilan Pappe and one of his students for daring to reveal the facts about this massacre.

The political question however is not about whether boycotting the Israeli ruling class and its academics servants or particular departments of the universities is justified on moral grounds - this is obvious. This however, is not the same as boycotting all the academic institutions that will hurt all the students and teachers.

The real question we should be discussing is what is the programme and perspective that will end the occupation and the repression. What will end the misery of the masses?

Those who advocate the boycott of Israel as their strategy refer to the boycott of the Apartheid regime in South Africa as their model. They claim that it was the international boycott of South Africa that brought down the Apartheid regime. That is totally false! What brought down the Apartheid regime was the mobilisation of the black masses of South Africa. In particular the organisation of the working class into massive trade unions, eventually leading to the formation of COSATU, combined with a wave of strike action and mass mobilisation is what forced the hated, white capitalist class to look for a way out of the impasse they were facing. That is what forced them to bring to an end the hated Apartheid laws and the regime that went with them. If this mass movement had not developed the boycott would not have brought an end to the Apartheid regime.

However, the fall of the Apartheid regime was not the end of the story! Anyone who is familiar with the history of South Africa knows that the revolutionary struggle of the black masses was eventually betrayed and instead of overthrowing the capitalist system that gave birth to the Apartheid regime, as was possible in 1994, the outcome of this heroic struggle of the workers and poor ended with a counter-revolution in democratic clothing. The reformist leadership of the ANC and the SACP saved the capitalist ruling class and their bourgeois state.

The gulf of inequality between the poor and the wealthy is as great or greater today than it was under white minority rule, although a slight redistribution has taken place, but only to the benefit of a thin layer of blacks brought into government and onto corporate boards. For the broad masses, conditions have grown increasingly desperate, with nearly one third of the population unemployed and a quarter infected with the HIV virus. While these conditions are justified as the "legacy of apartheid," they are also the legacy of a power transfer that kept capitalism intact, an outcome that was realized in part through the boycott campaign.

The boycott movement that many people around the world supported, but that was led by liberals and reformists with a wrong perspective, in the end played into the hands of the ruling class of South Africa. The same wrong perspective is being offered today.

The reason this movement is growing today 40 years after the 1967 war has nothing to do with the "newly" discovered evils of the Israeli occupation on the part of the likes of Jimmy Carter and imperialist politicians like him. It has to do with the failure of Israel as the major local power as a tool of imperialist control of the Middle East.

Following the UCU's resolution the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) issued the following statement. (PACBI, May 30, 2007) In spite of its length we reproduce it word for word.

"The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) salutes the historic decision by the University and College Union (UCU) Congress today to support motions that endorse the logic of academic boycott against Israel, in response to the complicity of the Israeli academy in perpetuating Israel's illegal military occupation and apartheid system.

"Academic boycott has been advocated in the past as an effective tool in resisting injustice. In the 1920s, Mahatma Gandhi called for boycotting British-run academic institutions, to increase Indian self-reliance and also to protest the role of those institutions in maintaining British colonial domination over India. In the 1950s, the African National Congress (ANC) called for a comprehensive boycott of the entire South African academy, as a means to further isolate the apartheid regime. To their credit, British academics were among the very first to adopt the latter boycott. Moral consistency makes it imperative to hold Israel to the same standards.

"Israel is now widely recognized as a state that actually practices apartheid, as evidenced in recent declarations by international figures from Jimmy Carter and UN Special Rapporteur on human rights Prof. John Dugard to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and South African government minister Ronnie Kasrils, among many others. During the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, Israel's policies have included house demolitions; Jews-only colonies and roads; uprooting hundreds of thousands of trees; indiscriminate killings of Palestinian civilians, particularly children; relentless theft of land and water resources; and denying millions of their freedom of movement by slicing up the occupied Palestinian territory into Bantustans - some entirely caged by walls, fences and hundreds of roadblocks.

"Throughout forty years of Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Israeli academics have duly continued to serve in the occupation army, thereby participating in, or at least witnessing, crimes committed on a daily basis against the civilian population of Palestine. No Israeli academic institution, association, or union has ever publicly opposed Israel's occupation and colonization, its system of racial discrimination against its own Palestinian citizens, or its obstinate denial of the internationally-sanctioned rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. Furthermore, the Israeli academy has been in direct or indirect collusion with the military-intelligence establishment, providing it with ‘academic' research services to sustain its oppression.

"This courageous and morally laudable decision by the UCU to apply effective pressure against Israel in the pursuit of justice and genuine peace is only the latest measure adopted by an international community that can no longer tolerate Israel's impunity in trashing human rights principles and international law. In the last few months alone, groups heeding - to various degrees - Palestinian calls for boycott and effective pressure against Israel have included the British National Union of Journalists (NUJ); Aosdana, the Irish state-sponsored academy of artists; Congress Of South African Trade Unions (COSATU); and prominent British and international architects led by Architects for Peace and Justice in Palestine (APJP).

"Once again, the taboo has been shattered. It has now become more legitimate than ever to denounce Israel's oppressive policies and to hold the state and all its complicit institutions accountable for human rights abuses, war crimes, and the longest military occupation in modern history. The Israeli academy will no longer be able to enjoy international recognition, cooperation, and generous support while remaining an accessory to crimes committed against the Palestinians.

"Palestinians are now more confident than ever that international civil society is indeed capable of shouldering the moral responsibility of standing up to injustice and demanding freedom, self-determination, and unmitigated equality for all."This is an utterly reformist perspective that seeks a solution to the Palestinian national question within the confines of the imperialist order and capitalism, the economic foundation of the imperialist order. This is the perspective of Mahatma Gandhi, who served British imperialism in India and whose perspective led to the partition of India while helping to block the mass movement in India from overthrowing the capitalist system. This is the perspective of the imperialist politicians, of the former president of American imperialism, Jimmy Carter, the perspective of the leadership of the ANC that now that they are in power have close ties with the Israeli ruling class.

It is not by mere chance that the resolution does not deal concretely with the question of how the refugees would return. Palestinian refugees who will never be allowed to return as long as Israel remains capitalist and the imperialist order continues. It ignores the fact that the only power that can overthrow the Israeli capitalist ruling class and offer a genuine solution to the refugee question among other questions is the working class struggling for a socialist transformation of society.

As Marxists we support trade unions in other countries that come out in defence of the right to self-determination of the Palestinians. However, we would ask one thing of our brothers and sisters around the world. They should word their protest resolutions and develop their activities in such a way as to differentiate between the rulers of Israel and the workers and the poor who also live here.

Many academics in Israel do indeed oppose the occupation. The average Israeli worker is not the one to be blamed for the reactionary ruling class and politicians who run Israel. It would be much better to formulate resolutions and actions clearly aimed against the Zionist ruling class and its interests, to organize a workers' boycott of Israeli military equipment that is sold to reactionary regimes around the world.

Israel is not one reactionary bloc, as many people on the left unfortunately believe. It is a class society. There are Jewish capitalists and Jewish workers. The Jewish bosses exploit the Jewish workers. There are class antagonisms. Yes, it is true that these are blurred by the national question. But is it not obvious that it is in the interests of the Israeli bourgeoisie to make the Jewish workers of Israel feel that they can only protect their interests through "national unity"? This means oppressing another people, the Palestinians.

It is the duty of genuine Marxists to work to break down this false unity. The same Israeli ruling class that oppresses the Palestinians is also cutting pensions for Jewish workers, increasing fees for Jewish students, sacking Jewish workers. So long as this situation is maintained, the workers in Israel will never really be free. It is in the interests of the Jewish workers to transform capitalist society, and their only real allies in this struggle are their Arab sisters and brothers, the workers in the Occupied Territories and beyond.

Unlike the whites in South Africa, Israel is a relatively new nation. It is a nation that oppresses another nation. Marx pointed out that a nation that oppresses another nation can never be free itself.

In spite of all this, however, sooner or later class contradictions will prevail in Israel. There is an ideological stranglehold at the moment, and the politics of the Labour Party right-wing bureaucracy is an important contributing factor in maintaining the present status quo. But the workers of Israel have no other choice. Poverty and unemployment are growing. There are constant attacks on their living standards. The objective situation will push the workers of Israel into struggle. If they want a better future they must struggle for a new society, namely socialism.

We do not believe that the struggle against the oppression of the Palestinian people will find a solution either in the creation of a Palestinian mini-state, or in the creation of a bourgeois state for all the people who live in this country. For almost 60 years, the national question has appeared to many to be the axis of the Middle East conflict. However, the bitter experience with the existing nationalist movements, all of which have proven politically bankrupt, everywhere, has shown - as Trotsky explained already in the "Permanent Revolution" - the organic incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to establish genuine independence from imperialism or lay the foundations for economic development capable of improving the life of the masses of the workers and oppressed. This is the task of the workers once the class takes power.

The idea behind indiscriminate boycott of all Israelis regardless of their social class is wrong. Israel is a capitalist state, which means it is founded on the exploitation of the working class. While characterizing these workers as "colonialists" may satisfy those venting their frustration and moral outrage, it does not provide the basis for a revolutionary perspective.

The conditions that presently exist in Israel are the product of a complex historical development. The lack of a socialist consciousness among the Israeli workers is the product of the betrayal of the international working class by Stalinism, Social Democracy and, of course, the bourgeois nationalist movements in the Arab world as well.

Today the Israeli army is killing innocent people in Gaza but the Qassams are falling not on the Israeli generals or the capitalists in Israel but on the working people of Sderot. This is not an accident but the result of the belief that all Israelis are one reactionary bloc.

Those who advocate boycott of indiscriminate boycotting of all Israelis as a strategy should be asked: why should the boycott be limited only to Israeli academics for instance? Why should it not include US and British academics, given that Washington and London have long supplied the money, and bombs to Israel to be used to kill Palestinians, and that both governments are responsible for crimes even worse than those carried out by Israel?

The reason the left reformists advocate the strategy of indiscriminate boycotting of all Israelis regarding of class, is to be found in the lack of authority of the ideas of Marxism among the new generation. The legacy of decades of Stalinism has been to undermine the influence and prestige of genuine Marxism.

What we are witnessing at this stage in the West is the strong influence of petty bourgeois ideas, which unfortunately have even penetrated the workers' movement, especially its upper layers. The middle class intellectuals who are "leading " the masses have introduced all kinds of alien ideas and prejudices into the Labour movement. The defenders of these ideas imagine that they represent "new" ways of thinking that have overcome the "old" and "irrelevant " ideas of Marxism. In reality they are simply repeating the ideas of the "True Socialists" whom Marx and Engels already answered over 150 years ago in the Communist Manifesto.

It is an elementary duty of the Marxists to initiate, support and encourage each and every protest against imperialism, especially to support the most militant forms of mass protest. But our fundamental aim is to involve the masses at every stage in every country including in Israel.

For this reason we call for a trade union based, workers' boycott of all the shipment and transporting of all military hardware and weaponry from and to Israel. The ports, trains and trucks must not be allowed to be used for the war effort of the Israel ruling class. The dockworkers', the railway workers', the truck drivers' unions must be called upon in every country to use such a boycott systematically. This however is very different than boycotting all the Israeli academics, and very different from boycotting all Israelis regardless of class.RENEGADE EYE

Another example of leftists turning their backs on progressive values and embracing the most reactionary RELIGIOUS fundamentalist movements. Leftists who support Hamas and Hezbollah are traitors of progressive values. They are Nazis pure and simple.

South African trade unions are boycotting Israel ? Those Nazi degenerates should be boycotting Mugabe instead.

"And the Western leftists want to boycott a country that allows such freedoms"

Are you talking about the racist Apartheid State of Israel? A boycott isn't enough, its time to pull the plug on America's murderous and oppressive welfare state. Israel is a lie built upon a lie built upon a fraud. Hamas and Hezbollah are little more than a response to Israeli invasion, occupation, land theft and savagery. Israel and Zionism is a morally bankrupt enterprise.

This article is a load of hairy bollocks. Maybe we should boycott articles that are a load of hairy bollocks? Or maybe that would be a stupid, counter productive attack on free speech…

The political question however is not about whether boycotting the Israeli ruling class and its academics servants or particular departments of the universities is justified on moral grounds - this is obvious.

I am afraid the ‘boycott’ IS a moral question, and no, it is not an obvious one.

How is it morally correct to close down academic freedom to anyone – particularly fellow academics?

If people oppose Israeli oppression of Palestinians (I do) then the best way to fight it – if you are an academic or a student in another country – is to debate this with Israeli academics and students.

So, yes, it is a moral question – it is a question of so called ‘radicals’ supporting bans on free speech and academic freedoms.

The boycott should be opposed for no other reason than that...apart from the fact that it will do notjing for Palestine (something that the article does acknowledge.

Bans are passive forms of protest and should be fought by all progressives.

"Western leftists are the scum of the earth. They deserve to rot in hell for their support of oppression. They are evil monsters!!!!"

And mass murdering psychopaths like Bush and Cheney are not, I suppose.And I should add, in 42 years of activism, I have never met a socialist, communist or anarchist I would ever characterize as evil or monstrous. Yes, a few are nutty, some were slimy opportunists, but the vast majority the most decent folks you could ever encounter. If they were, as you cruelly and dishonestly characterize, I would be the first to distance myself from them.I should add this goes not just for my own compatriots, At the risk of "Wha somma mah bes frens..." indeed some of my best friends are CPers or Trotskyists.

You might want to check out the following link for a report which makes the case for an academic boycott in support of Palestinian self-determination rights.

according to the Jerusalem-based Alternative Information Center website (www.alternativenews.org) :

“Israel’s academic institutions discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel by restricting their enrollment; persecuting them for political involvement; gagging their freedom of expression and actively working to keep international students away from their towns and villages.”

Go back and actually read what is written. Your comments don't match what is written.

Those were the paragraphs that made my blood boil:

Anyone who is familiar with the history of South Africa knows that the revolutionary struggle of the black masses was eventually betrayed and instead of overthrowing the capitalist system that gave birth to the Apartheid regime, as was possible in 1994, the outcome of this heroic struggle of the workers and poor ended with a counter-revolution in democratic clothing. The reformist leadership of the ANC and the SACP saved the capitalist ruling class and their bourgeois state.

In light of what is happening in Zimbabwe today, that paragraph is a monstrous obscenity...

It is in the interests of the Jewish workers to transform capitalist society, and their only real allies in this struggle are their Arab sisters and brothers, the workers in the Occupied Territories and beyond.

It reminds me of the garbage Jewish Communists were writing between 1933 and 1943, claiming that the German workers would come to the rescue of the persecuted Jews. Not a single German worker ever did. The only Germans who tried to kill Hitler were rich aristocrats.

The reason this movement is growing today 40 years after the 1967 war has nothing to do with the "newly" discovered evils of the Israeli occupation on the part of the likes of Jimmy Carter and imperialist politicians like him. It has to do with the failure of Israel as the major local power as a tool of imperialist control of the Middle East.

Here, Yossi Schwartz has lost it completely. He is essentially blaming the boycott on George W. Bush. The guy belongs in an insane asylum.

Wow. A lot of yapping, but it seems not many read the post. The post is against an international indiscriminate boycott of Israel!

The author has a good point when he talks about internal mobilization being the main reason apartheid ended in South Africa. Internal movements are needed. That goes for Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, US, France, etc...

btw, it is easy for a Westerner to bad mouth Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas because they're are enemies. We have limited, if any, say in what they do. On the other hand, our criticism of Israel, in theory, can actually change Israel's actions (obviously, due to the massive amount of military aid they get from places like the US). Of course militant Islam deserves criticism, and it gets it fair share (on this blog as well) but to constantly attack the enemies of your government and say little about it, or its allies policies, is chickenshit. (in all fairness, it is done by both sides, although it is especially noticeable when it comes to criticism of Israel)

I am so sick in tired of this straw man argument that is pushed on people from the highest level of government to the idiot at the water cooler at work. It is juvenile. It goes something like this:

"I am against the occupation in Israel"

"North Korea is worse."

Well, we aren't talking about North Korea, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia. We are talking about a country that we have a direct influence on. That isn't "embracing fundamentalism," that is practicing freedom of speech and democracy. (concepts noticeably absent from many right-wing arguments)

We can show solidarity with groups fighting oppression in those countries, but we can't fight it for them, they've got to take the lead. The author of this post is also 100% correct when he calls for recognizing class distinctions and not simply calling for feel good blanket boycotts (and he is right in showing how so-called "intellectuals" bow to power, something quite familiar to Americans). The fact that he is an Israeli makes the piece even more powerful. Kudos Renegade! Great article.

Boycotters should stay away from computers based around Intel or Motorola CPUs (both designed by Israeli divisions of those corporations), especially those computers connecting to the Internet (with Cisco Systems routers, also Israeli-designed) to look at webpages like Blogger sites that serve textfeeds with Javascript .asp files (invented by Sun Microsystems, developed in Israel). Best bet - stay off the Internet entirely.

easy for a Westerner to bad mouth Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas because they're are enemies. We have limited, if any, say in what they do. On the other hand, our criticism of Israel, in theory, can actually change Israel's actions (...) We are talking about a country that we have a direct influence on.

Spoken like a true Yankee imperialist. Btw, Graeme, your friends in the Middle East would disagree with you. They all claim that USA is Israel's colony, not vice versa... Western anti-semites claim so as well.

Welcome to the great imperialist family, Graeme. However, you're not with the program. The plan is to colonize Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran, and leave Israel free and independent. It's easier to colonize nations already ruled by brutal tyrants. Colonizing democratic states is far more difficult... and pointless...

Beamish,

Brilliant point! I think leftists should only use the software designed by Palestinians, Zimbabweans and Venezuelans. Otherwise, their own money goes directly into to the coffers of the Israeli government.

That is right only an Israeli has the moral authority to criticize the Apartheid State. Congrats to our Zionist media our brainwashing is complete.

It is touching that this author is so concerned about Israel's working class. It seems to me that these folks have been willing participants in the subjugation of over half of the people under Israel’s control in the last 40 years. It seems to me that what we need to inflict on Israel is not an academic boycott or even the type recommended by this author, but the kind of complete strangulation imposed on the Palestinian people by Israel and their minions in this country after the democratic election of Hamas.

Oh and yes Mr. Beamish thank you for reminding us of those Israeli innovations. It’s not like we Americans didn’t pay for them though is it? And of course they have put that innovation to good use. Israel and their telecommunication companies were spying on Americans and our government long before our government starting spying on us. That’s of course is how Mossad knew where all of our drug enforcement offices were and where their agents lived. It also explains why the Israeli government is now in possession of Bill and Monika’s phone sex tapes. Just think what Israel could extort from Hillary in the next four years to keep those under wraps. And last but not least the Grand Daddy of all of Israeli treachery, 9/11, the day that Mossad slept in.

Sonia: It reminds me of the garbage Jewish Communists were writing between 1933 and 1943, claiming that the German workers would come to the rescue of the persecuted Jews. Not a single German worker ever did. The only Germans who tried to kill Hitler were rich aristocrats.

That has nothing to do with Yossi's positions, or history in general. That was the time of "Third Period Stalinism," when the German Communist Party was fighting social-democrats, calling them social-fascists etc.

Yossi's group is doing more than hoping. They are joining Israeli working class organizations as the Labor Party and the Israeli trade unions. That is an alternative to nationalism and Islamism.

In light of what is happening in Zimbabwe today, that paragraph is a monstrous obscenity...

Zimbabwe is a capitalist state.

Graeme: Excellent comment.

Beamish: You didn't read the post.

LWB: You were the only one who said something is special about his views because he is Israeli.

Israel has been a state about 60 years. It has the right to exist. Israeli nationalism says us against them. It only continues the endless cycle. Nationalism unites the working class with the reactionary leaders, rather than acting as class in itself. Yossi is proposing a class analysis. If you live in Israel, workers belong to Zionist groups. People first go to groups they are familiar with. I think Israeli militants should join the Labor Party and trade unions, even if they are Zionist. No different than joining the Labor Party in the UK, the NDP in Canada or PSUV in Venezuela. In those groups fight for your program. Why tie the Israeli working class to the reactionary Zionist leadership, while there own living standards are cut, because of the leaders adventures? At the same time Palestinians need to break from nationalist and Islamist leadership. Lately there has been talks between Palestinian and Israeli trade unions. That is a start.

The sex tape, 9/11 stuff is wacky. The US dictates to Israel, not the other way around. Those are awfully big conspiracies to keep quiet.

Marxist drivel. I wish I could get the 5 minutes of my life back that it took to read that worthless propaganda.

Look, if you actually believe Israel's conflicts with the arabs would resolved if only the Zionists would return to the Communist principles that guided the movement during its formative stages than you are a utopian fundamentalist, not a realist.

Good. So whay is much of the left obsessed with tokenist bans on various groups speaking at university campuses? This is the 'No Platform' nonsense beloved of the SWP in the UK, for instance. It's just pathetic.

Freedom of speech is not a bourgeoise right - it's the fundemental one that all others follow. If you ainlt got that you ain't got the beginings of any other right. It's the one that all else rests on.

Snarky or not, I read the article again, just to be sure I didn't miss on any of the magic that makes leftists and other kinds of sub-intellectuals react lovingly about plans to choke Israel to death. I'm immune.

Your passion for this national socialist's article isn't translatable to my palette. You're eating shit and loving it, as it were.

Wow! Never seen such an amount of Zionist scum all making comments in the same place.Your all full of shit. Israel kills little unarmed boys everyday. And don't any of you scum try to tell me they attack you with "missiles" on a regular basis. We all know that's bullshit. You come off so righteous, but you all support your filthy, murderous troops. Fuck Zionism and fuck you.

Why how condescending you are. Can you hear me from those icey Hyperborean heights?

I voted in favour of the boycott because Israel is a terrorist state. Simple. It's not hostility directed towards the Israeli people but a reaction to the serious war crimes committed by the Zionist government.

I support any boycott against Israel. It is the second biggest threat to the world after the United States.

If you condone the actions of Israel, you condone terrorism, you condone ethnic cleansing, you condone the slaughter of unarmed civilians, you condone the illegal occupation of sovereign territory, and you condone the indiscriminate bombing and killing of children.

As for your metaphor about 'shit' - who is the 'sub-intellectual' now? I see you have an expressive, extensive vocabulary?! A load of pomp and rhetoric. Does one taste one's own shit on one's palette? That is the question.

Go and sniff some petrol: indulge your delirium. Take Sonia with you as well. You can get high and fantasize over the corpses of dead children.

Sick, sick people. I feel sorry for you.

RENEGADE - you're the man! lol. Keep it coming my friend. I love the site. We are stronger now than ever before. Keep up the good work!

But to answer your question: Do you condone terrorism, ethnic cleansing, the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the illegal occupation of sovereign territory, and the indiscriminate bombing and killing of children?

No, I do not. That's why I'm sympathetic to Israel in its conflicts against the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian ex-patriates who direct terrorism against them.

I'm going to bed in a few minutes, and will comment more in the evening here.

Everyone stop the sloganeering.

Beamish: Show me precisely what you mean when you say fascism is not right wing. Define it and prove it is not an effect of capitalism. I'm precise when I use terms as national socialism or fascism. That article is so off the mark. It's footnoted with books, instead of pages in books. Not real sophisticated.

Terry: Sonia is rightist, but has not one fascist bone in her naked body. She has defended me in free speech battles.

The Middle East is more regards ethnicity and religion, not race. I'm working to change it to class.

You are right, we should focus this debate and have a decent discussion.

As for Sonia:

I found her initial comments ridiculous and the instant resort to Nazi labeling and accusations of antisemitism rather crude. Such lewd accusations wear out the term and also detract from the real antisemites in this world who are quite dangerous. I'm sure we are all aware of the situation in Russia.

Antisemitism is a serious issue and not a batting-ball. Similarly, criticism of the Israeli government should not be confused with antisemitism or anti-Judaism, it is a valid position. Anyone who believes in free speech must surely recognise this right.

A related issue is also the overuse of National Socialism as some kind of definitive paradigm. I hope no one thinks that because the title contains the word socialism, it must mean that the NSDP were socialists. This is another oxymoronic term and one that should be avoided unless the discussion is centered around those events.

You are 'sympathetic to Israel in its conflicts' because its opponents 'direct terrorism against them' and as such you do not condone terrorist activities. However, this statement can be reversed and applied against Israel which also directs terrorism against its opponents.

By sympathising with Israel, you are condoning terrorism and justifying countless atrocities against unarmed civilians. You can therefore not stand against terrorism. It is the same error that the left-wing commits when they side with Hizbollah or Hamas due to their opposition to Israel.

This is a logical fallacy: it is impossible to be both hot and cold. In effect you are placing a higher value on Israeli lives than Arab lives which is just plain old racism.

The adequate position would be to condemn both sides if you do not support terrorism. Taking the side of one or the other inevitably leads to binary thinking and the inadvertent justification of the acts committed by the side that you support. If you support Israel then you condone the use of state terrorism. You don't have to pick a side. Human life is not a spectator sport.

Do you see my point?

As for fascism: there is no standard definition for fascism. In fact, definitions often vary, which is why it is such an overused term. Its historical origins lie in ancient Rome and the symbol of the Fasci. Check it out.

Finally, Mr Beamish and Sonia:

Where do you get your information? If it's from the tv news channels then I'm very worried.

Such lewd accusations wear out the term and also detract from the real antisemites in this world who are quite dangerous. I'm sure we are all aware of the situation in Russia.

Yeah, right. There must be plenty of Russian anti-semites exploding suicide bombs next to Jewish primary schools in Tel Aviv...

Arabs are the most rabid anti-semites today. I don't support their struggle. They don't deserve any support. They even slaughter their own people. If they ever win, Israel will become a fracticide killing field like Gaza today.

criticism of the Israeli government should not be confused with antisemitism or anti-Judaism, it is a valid position..

Saying that Israel is the 'second biggest threat to the world after the United States' isn't criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel is to say that Israel's military leadership was incompetent, failed to destroy Hezbollah and that those Israeli generals should be fired. That's criticism of Israel.

I hope no one thinks that because the title contains the word socialism, it must mean that the NSDP were socialists.

A very perceptive observation. So next time a Arab anti-semitic religious fundamentalist calls himself a 'progressive communist freedom fighter', don't believe him. He isn't.

Do you condone terrorism, ethnic cleansing, the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the illegal occupation of sovereign territory, and the indiscriminate bombing and killing of children?

A better question would be to ask what do you do AFTER this happens to a people, who then decide not to let anyone, even the Palestinians, to do this to them AGAIN.

Israelis are the victims. Arabs are the agressors. The fact that the agressors are loosing doesn't make them virtuous. Villains also lose from time to time. Fortunately.

You are 'sympathetic to Israel in its conflicts' because its opponents 'direct terrorism against them' and as such you do not condone terrorist activities. However, this statement can be reversed and applied against Israel which also directs terrorism against its opponents.

Your bizarre rhetoric is not a substitute for logic. If you wish to contend that Israel engages in terrorism you're going to have to provide your definition of the term "terrorism" for me to examine for its likely equally bizarre deviation from reality.

Needless to say, I disagree with the premise that Israel engages in terrorism.

By sympathising with Israel, you are condoning terrorism and justifying countless atrocities against unarmed civilians.

By making a fallacy of presumption the central premise of your argument, you are making a fool of yourself.

You can therefore not stand against terrorism. It is the same error that the left-wing commits when they side with Hizbollah or Hamas due to their opposition to Israel.

And "terrorism" is?

This is a logical fallacy: it is impossible to be both hot and cold. In effect you are placing a higher value on Israeli lives than Arab lives which is just plain old racism.

At least you lead off this strawman about what value I place on anyone's life by correctly labelling the paragraph a logical fallacy.

The adequate position would be to condemn both sides if you do not support terrorism. Taking the side of one or the other inevitably leads to binary thinking and the inadvertent justification of the acts committed by the side that you support. If you support Israel then you condone the use of state terrorism. You don't have to pick a side. Human life is not a spectator sport.

Do you see my point?

Yes. You wanted to call me a terror supporting racist before I mopped the floors with you.

As for fascism: there is no standard definition for fascism. In fact, definitions often vary, which is why it is such an overused term. Its historical origins lie in ancient Rome and the symbol of the Fasci. Check it out.

So you were really calling me a ancient Roman proconsul, and not a follower of the leftist Mussolini?

It's funny, I was just reading a blog the other day where, because the writer was right wing, he used the term "faux rightist" for anything which he disliked but which was generally known in mainstream consciousness as right or extreme right.

So he called Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidate, who he disapproved of for his antiwar stance, a "faux rightist".

He also called neo-Nazi groups "faux rightist".

I am not really sure what to make of this.

I mean it if quite natural, I suppose, to not want your own corner to be associated with something you disapprove of or which is generally regarded as despicable.

It is just that if people simply stop using words as they are used in generally accepted discourse it can make it quite difficult to have a conversation.

That said, it may just be that the traditional way of labeling beliefs as left or right is not as useful or as explanatory as it once was.

I mean, as has been pointed out by countless commentators, if you look at the extremes of the traditional political spectrum as they have actually been realised in history (as opposed to what the participating leaders claimed them to be) then they look pretty similar. Soviet communism (and its equivalents) and German fascism (and its equivalents) were both vile totalitarian police states.

Was Irgun merely a "gang of terrorists"? If this "history" and timeline is true, the Zionists didn't go on "offense" until "defense" was no longer "fruitful"...(hence Irgun was initial known as Haganah Bet or "Defense Plan B"). Haganah appears to have been a purely defensive militia that didn't "splinter" and become radicalized until after the '29 riots and most active during the Arab Uprising in '36

And IMO, this wasn't a war of "terrorists". It was a "civil war" in which the Zionists ultimately prevailed.

Wow! Your so full of blatant lies. Also, how did you "mop the floor" with Terry? I can't see it.

George Galloway from the UK "mops the floor" with all you Zionists.You do love to play the victims, don't you?

Also, according to Jewish law there should NOT be a state of Israel. Jews are in exile by God and should live with the people of the world in harmony - Fact according to scripture. Zionists are NOT true Jewish people. You just blacken their names with your filth.

The Pseudostinian refugee's have dozens of lands in the area they could settle in (if the surrounding Arabs states would ever let them instead of forcing them to live in UN Welfare Camps). The Jews only have one.

The Lehi sound like a bunch of Johnnie come lately Nazi's. Every group has to have a couple of fascists. Sounds like they were too radical even for Irgun. As my relatives used to say, "up the British!"

Firstly, Sonia and Mr Beamish, I asked you both a very simple question: where do you get your information world from? This means which newspaper do you read? Which tv station do you rely upon? Very simple question and I'm sure you can provide an answer.

Now, I'll slay you both independently:

Sonia:

As before, I believe your arguments to be rather crude, reductive and irrelevent. Let me demonstrate:

Yeah, right. There must be plenty of Russian anti-semites exploding suicide bombs next to Jewish primary schools in Tel Aviv...

No that is not the case at all. Seriously, are you on drugs because that's just not relevant to the statement that I made. I notice that others have already pointed out your inability to respond to a statement, even the article above. All in all, you are behaving like a thoughtless propagandist. Semi-witty comments may be great fun but they don't add to the debate whatsoever. My initial attack was merely a ploy to draw you all, rather like drawing pus from a wound.

Anyway, I referred to Russia because anyone who is connected to the world will know that anti-semitism and race hate attacks, even murders, are being committed quite frequently. I don't think this is a laughing matter and your response is insensitive and, as ever, completely irrelevant and inappropriate. If anything it's vulgar.

Arabs are the most rabid anti-semites today. I don't support their struggle.

You don't have too as I already explained, even though Mr Beamish clearly didn't understand. You don't have to pick a side, that's a very restricted way of thinking. The world is not composed of binary opposites.

They don't deserve any support.

Neither does Israel yet they've recieved over $100 billion tax dollars in aid and have the finest fleet of (US donated) fighter jets outside of the United States. They also possess chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but are not subject to UN inspections.

What's your point, anyway?

They even slaughter their own people.

Propaganda. How many people are fried to death, or injected with poison in the United States each year? Is that not slaughtering your own people? Very silly statement - not worth commenting on any further.

If they ever win, Israel will become a fracticide killing field like Gaza today.

Again, what universe are you in? Another silly statement. According to that logic everything will remain the same ('like Gaza today'). Whoops.

Saying that Israel is the 'second biggest threat to the world after the United States' isn't criticism of Israel.

It quite clealry is. Do you not understand the English language properly? Perhaps you should go to Cuba for literacy lessons.

Criticism of Israel is to say that Israel's military leadership was incompetent, failed to destroy Hezbollah and that those Israeli generals should be fired. That's criticism of Israel.

Another warped statement. This is getting boring.

A very perceptive observation. So next time a Arab anti-semitic religious fundamentalist calls himself a 'progressive communist freedom fighter', don't believe him. He isn't.

Yet another statement that does not respond to what I said. Are these just things that you want to get off your chest? I can't respond to a non-response - the debate would descend into chaos.

A better question would be to ask what do you do AFTER this happens to a people, who then decide not to let anyone, even the Palestinians, to do this to them AGAIN.

At last! You've said something useful. I agree - a response should be formulated, even a military response against miltray targets if neccessary. The response though is usually aimed at civilain targets in order to cause terror ie. terrorism. I'll elaborate upon this point very soon when I demolish Mr Beamish.

Israelis are the victims. Arabs are the agressors.

Now that is ridiculous. Israeli are victims?! What with their billion dollar defence budget; chemical biological and nuclear missiles; advanced firearms; some of the most finely trained troops in the world; an airforce that is secind only to the United States and an intelligence/terrorist network that spans the globe??? Victims???

Do you rely on the American corporate media for your information? Fox News perhaps?

The fact that the agressors are loosing doesn't make them virtuous. Villains also lose from time to time. Fortunately.

I agree. Nice statement. You really can do it if you try!

Now you've been demolished, you're a heap of rubble on the floor and I've been kind. Go and read, learn and think. Please.

Mr Beamish:

Still preaching to us from those icey climbs? Pompous arseholes like yourself are my favorite flavour. However, judging by your blog, it seems that you have some serious psychological issues and should definately not be handing out advice. You seem to have a superiority complex, perhaps because you feel inferior in the really, real world. Do you have a little willy? Is that what this militancy is all about?

Insults aside, allow me to deconstruct your stupidity, Comrade.

Your bizarre rhetoric is not a substitute for logic.

Yes it is. What makes you qualified to decide what is logic. Do you have any credentials in this area?

If you wish to contend that Israel engages in terrorism you're going to have to provide your definition of the term "terrorism" for me to examine for its likely equally bizarre deviation from reality.

Needless to say, I disagree with the premise that Israel engages in terrorism.

1. Terrorism as defined by the FBI:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85) Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

2. Terrorism as defined by the United Nations:

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures.

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).Available at: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

Are these definitions 'equally bizarre deviations from reality'? ACCORDING TO BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM, ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE.

By making a fallacy of presumption the central premise of your argument, you are making a fool of yourself.

No I'm not. Say what you will - I am sure that most of the educated readers will see this as a false statement. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? You should do as you commit them enough.

Speaking for the world again mein fuhrer! Big mistake. This is my area of work and study - I'm an award winning linguist and I specialise in critical linguistics. Discourse is my domain, hence the ease with which I expose your ineptitude. Now, who's the fool?

You wanted to call me a terror supporting racist before I mopped the floors with you.

You are a 'terror supporting racist' as I have demonstrated. The reader can make up their own mind and the evidence is available in abundance. Someone has already laughed at you for thinking you 'mopped the floors' with me. Is the basis for that claim your pathetic argument?

So you were really calling me a ancient Roman proconsul, and not a follower of the leftist Mussolini?

Nope. Wrong again - mis-inference on your part. I simply said 'there is no standard definition for fascism. In fact, definitions often vary, which is why it is such an overused term. Its historical origins lie in ancient Rome and the symbol of the Fasci.'

I call any racist scum bag, such as your good self, a fascist. It's meant to offend you.

Clarity, kiddo.Tell yourself that every morning and you might get somewhere.

You are nothing more than a wind-bag who tries to hide behind thinly veiled rhetoric. I'm pleased you can write sentences with multiple clause, that you can employ polysyllabic terms and that you actually respond. The only thing lacking is actual content, which is remarkably absent from many of your statements. No substance, dear Comrade.

Propaganda. How many people are fried to death, or injected with poison in the United States each year? Is that not slaughtering your own people? Very silly statement - not worth commenting on any further.

No, it's not propaganda. In Gaza, Hamas and Al Fatah are exterminating each other. They are both genocidal monsters. They are not victims. They are evil.

At last Sonia - a decent response! You do remind me of Anne Coulter though. Are you a fan of hers?

You are correct in drawing attention to the tribal politics and faction rivalry in the Arab/Persian world. However, I think you are very misguided and you have a very simplistic view of this world we all share.

Many forces operate in this world and none of them go by the terms 'good' and 'evil'. These are subjective concepts that have no value in reality. The universe is indifferent to 'good' and 'evil'. We use these terms to express our own moral values but they are always facilitated by ideological commitments.

What you are referring to is actually a cultural phenomenon and not an example of 'genocide'. Some of the dispute sin the middle east date back thousands of years. This is a very complex issue and cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs as much as it cannot be justified by your opaque comment.

All I see from your responses here is an angry, Arab-hating racist. Your hatred is almost palpable and it is disturbing. Even your use of the term Arab is often incorrect. The Palestinians and Afghanis are Arabs as are our good friends the Saudis. The Iraqis and Iranians are actually Persian, not Arabic.

I'm not sure if you're misguided,or if you're just another unscrupulous propagandist on the AIPAC payroll.

Please seek fresh perspectives!

For instance, examine the case of the nuclear whistle-blower, Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli citizen who worked at one of the nuclear processing plants and who was falsely imprisoned for 18 years, spending 11 of them in complete solitary confinement.

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

Please examine this case and use it as a stepping stone to greater awareness. As a proponent of free speech, I'm sure you will find it interesting. This is an example of Israel oppressing its own citizens. There are many more.

Think about why I would do this? I want you to be aware of both sides and reach a balanced decision. Only then will you quench your anger and your thirst for blood.

Stop speaking for other people. Terry does not say he "supports those genocidal monsters who kill each other for no reason!". Stick to speaking for yourself and your not very good at that either. I'd practice more on yourself if I was you.

Please no boycott of Israel, the only true democracy in the middle east. The closest government to the ideals of liberal democratic values. Who even comes close?WOW, this gem: "The legacy of decades of Stalinism has been to undermine the influence and prestige of genuine Marxism."I'm surprised and glad to see that Marxist purists finally admit that the fiasco called the Stalinist era was a failed political experiment. It cost much suffering and many innocent lives were sacrificed. A horrible experiment that may have doomed any serious resurgence of those ideals for the distant future. As a result, even the most ardent anti-capitalist is now hesitant to commit to the persuit of Marxist political revolution. The historical irony is that Stalin, the man who possesed the greatest practical potential and power for the advancement of world-wide socialism, was also the man who by virtue of his unchallenged tyranical rule, let it slip through his fingers. Marxist socialism as a political construct? Maybe someday after the Stalin era is ancient history and humankind retains a mere diminished memory of this unfortunate footnote. We will all be gone by then.

Roman: Trotskyists have always been the first victims of Stalinists. Trotskyists have always thought of Stalinist states as deformed workers states.

Terry: React to real debate with real debate, and to snarkiness with snarkiness. The conservatives who come to this site, like sharp debate. Some have visited this site for years.

I believe there is a precise definition of fascism. It is important, because misuse causes strategic errors. If you call Bush fascist, you are only fronting Democrats. Stalinists called social-democrats fascist, and that led to Hitler. All of this leads to Beamish.

Beamish: You called my post national socialist, and Hitler and Mussolini leftwing. I read your reference and have to react. I've heard that same ridiculousness from Beakerkin.

Trotsky correctly identified what fascism is, and warned the Soviet Union and the capitalist democracies to get ready militarily to fight Hitler 10 years before Churchill. Churchill said in 1927, "charmed” he was, “by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple manner, and by his calm detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers."

This is from Trotsky's 1933 essay "National Socialism." Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism.

German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram against the organizations of the working class and the institutions of democracy. But fascism in power is least of all the rule of the petty bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital. Mussolini is right: the middle classes are incapable of independent policies. During periods of great crisis they are called upon to reduce to absurdity the policies of one of the two basic classes. Fascism succeeded in putting them at the service of capital Such slogans as state control of trusts and the elimination of unearned income were thrown overboard immediately upon the assumption of power. Instead, the particularism of German “lands” leaning upon the peculiarities of the petty bourgeoisie gave way to capitalist-police centralism. Every success of the internal and foreign policies of National Socialism will inevitably mean the further crushing of small capital by large.

The program of petty-bourgeois illusions is not discarded; it is simply torn away from reality, and dissolved in ritualistic acts. The unification of all classes reduces itself to semisymbolic compulsory labor and to the confiscation of the labor holiday of May Day for the “benefit of the people.” The preservation of the Gothic script as opposed to the Latin is a symbolic revenge for the yoke of the world market The dependence upon the international bankers, Jews among their number, is not eased an iota, wherefore it is forbidden to slaughter animals according to the Talmudic ritual. If the road to heaven is paved with good intentions, then the avenues of the Third Reich are paved with symbols.

Mussolini started as a social-democrat. When he became a fascist the first action he did, was murder a group of Social Democratic leaders.

The article you site equates Roosevelt's New Deal to Mussolini's political program. I think that in itself negates the article.

Syndicalism? Unions under fascism were nationalist in character. The bosses were members. One big happy family.

The fascist movements in Italy were bought and paid for by monopoly capitalists. They bankrolled the Brown Shirted thugs.

Trotsky pointed out fascists use BOTH anti-capitalist socialist rhetoric and pro-capitalist rhetoric. It is a unique movement, grown from the middle classes and lumpen elements, and paid for and used by monopoly capitalism to obliterate the revolutionary movement.

Mussolini being the first fascist had to experiment. The mix of Brown shirts along actual soldiers was uncomfortable.

Mussolini was capitalism's office boy, when he was no longer useful, he was gone.

Your disturbing references to your debate opponents as "flavors" that you want to "eat" and your eager inquiries about the size of my genitalia have me a bit puzzled. Are you a gay leftist? I'm just asking, because I get that question alot from gay leftists online. It's kinda creepy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that to you, right? Even the leftist Hitler liked to smoke pole from time to time.

ACCORDING TO BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM, ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE.

Trotsky had a bit of the "my revolutionary philosophy is more pure than others" fever himself, wouldn't you say? Trotsky's opposition to Mussolini doesn't make Mussolini a right-winger or less leftist any more that Trotsky's opposition to Stalin makes Stalin a right-winger or less leftist. Leftists argue (or shoot at and bomb) with each other and split into factions all the time, and have since Robespierre yelled from the guillotine "Ree-ra ra reh-rarooshrun" with his dying breath and half-missing jaw. Leftists in power tend to use that power to supress their own people with police states. It's part of the basic package.

Trotsky pointed out fascists use BOTH anti-capitalist socialist rhetoric and pro-capitalist rhetoric. It is a unique movement, grown from the middle classes and lumpen elements, and paid for and used by monopoly capitalism to obliterate the revolutionary movement.

More One True Leftism swill from the Bolshevik voted off the island by his fellow leftists.

Not at all true Trotsky was a purist. His theory of combined and uneven development used in Russia, was a direct repudiation of classical Marxism. The idea of a semi-feudal country having a socialist revolution, was a new idea.

As I said before, Mussolini was bought and paid for by capitalists as was Hitler. Fascism is not the first choice of capitalism, but it is used under certain conditions.

I'm not aware of any rulemaking on my part. I can only ultimately address that which you choose to be an apologist for and I can only ultimately defend the things I choose to be an apologist for. Fair enough?

But, I'm really keen on history as it happened, so I take exception to attempts to revise. Yes, Mussolini was a propagandist. But, like, Trotsky wasn't? Stalin wasn't?

As I said before, Mussolini was bought and paid for by capitalists as was Hitler.

Is that a testable claim, or a faith slogan? Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister of Italy by the King of Italy in pretty much a surrender ceremony within the contextual atmosphere of chaos, terrorism and violence between viscious gangs of socialists, anarchists, and yes fascists too. Mussolini's followers were marching on Rome to take over, and they did.

Don't try to sell me that garbage about capitalists buying and paying for Mussolini. Mussolini was puppeteer, not puppet. He was out to subdue the "plutocrats." And he did.

Hitler rose to power in a manner vastly more parliamentarian than Mussolini's path to power, but nonetheless Hitler was elected only by the backing of a coalition of Germany's left-wing parties in the Reichstag.

Maybe you leftists ought not get together and agree on something, eh?

Fascism is not the first choice of capitalism, but it is used under certain conditions.

That's horseshit. Fascism opposed international trade in favor of autarky, confiscated all the means of production it could from its nationally unified fiefdoms throughout Italy (in the name of the "people of Italy," no less) and was fiercely involved in price controls, taxation, rationing, and other anti-laissez faire measures throughout its tenure in power in Italy.

It can't be because I'm just stupid. Even if you squint past Terry's disturbing inquisitiveness about the size of my genitalia, you still wind up with Terry repeating the absurd assertion "Israel is a terrorist state" without further elaboration.

Some examples of how Israel's actions meet the definition of terrorism by those organizations would have been nice. An explanation as to why the US government and the United Nations organizations these definitions derive from do not themselves consider Israel to be a terrorist state would be nice as well.

That is, if Terry's crashed off his sleep deprivation binge and ready to try Plan B. Or maybe you'd like to take a whack at it.

Hitler was elected only by the backing of a coalition of Germany's left-wing parties in the Reichstag.

Not quite. It was Germany's RIGHT-WING parties that voted for the Enabling Act that made Hitler a dictator More here.

But German Communists, ordered so by Stalin, share the blame for Hitler's rise. They flatly refused to join the coalition Schleicher (the last chancellor before Hitler) was trying to build with all anti-Nazi forces.

Ultimately, both German capitalists and German Communists were fooled by Hitler in 1933.

"An explanation as to why the US government and the United Nations organizations these definitions derive from do not themselves consider Israel to be a terrorist state would be nice as well."

Well it is evident that public proclamations and designations by any state about another, at a general level, are made within a framework of the diplomatic and military relationship between the two states. It is also true that the US and Israel are strong allies. That would seem to be a highly plausible explanation.

The UN is not in the business of designating states in such a way. I am not even sure if there is any provision in the UN charter for such a designation. However, as is well known, the UN has passed innumerable resolutions condemning Israel's actions in the occupied territories, including relating to breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, supporters of the occupation tend to interpret such resolutions as evidence of a UN bias or anti-semitism etc. But then any criticism of the Israeli state tends to encounter such a response at some point, whatever the merits of the accusation.

The Weimar Coalition was being undermined and attacked on all sides by monarchists, international communists, and nationalists. The promise of giving diplomatic recognition to the Vatican flipped the German Centre Party into Hitler's camp at the time of the Enabling Act, more than any anti-communist sentiment (which was really high). The Catholic Church at the time was advocating a form of progressive syndicalism detached from Marxist class designations, but a form of syndicalism nonetheless so there's not many grains of rightward difference in the degree of leftism there.

The White Russians regard the period of communism in Russia between 1917 and 1991 to be a period of "occupation" by an foreign, internationalist cabal.

That's pretty much the same mentality internationally at the time of Hitler's rise in the mid 1920's. Communism was being fought in the streets then, what with all the attendant "anarchist" syndicalist yahoos tossing dynamite, robbing banks, and gunning down people the world over - even on the streets of the United States.

The terrorism of international communists provided the means to Hitler's end - a more pragmatic, incremental installation of a socialism based on German "Aryan" nationality as a class. Hitler was for the "German" worker, not the "international" worker. Considering the invocation of a national identity aspect to their socialism in the rhetoric of leftist revolutionaries as far back as Napoleon Bonaparte and onward to Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Hugo Chavez... it's really a distinction without a difference.

I'm looking forward to something more along the lines of "The FBI defines terrorism as 'the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.' Israel's military unlawfully uses force when it...." followed by something other than Terry's best impression of an idiot. And so on.

I was merely offering a plausible account of why if Israel is a terrorist state "the US government and the United Nations organizations these definitions derive from do not themselves consider Israel to be a terrorist state", which was something you yourself asked for.

The UN resolutions passed against Israel have always been under the aegis of Article 6 of the UN Charter, which are non-binding resolutions. Israel has never been condemned for "terrorism" by any UN resolution with substance or authority under international law.

[The UN resolutions passed against Iraq's state terrorism were forwarded under Article 7, which are binding resolutions]

In fact, the only people that seem to be accusing Israel of terrorism are making fart noises on the scene of geopolitical relevance.

The belief that Israel is a "terrorist state" doesn't seem to be getting much traction outside of actual terrorist states and fringe socialist and Islamist circles.

"Israel has never been condemned for "terrorism" by any UN resolution with substance or authority under international law."

I never stated that it had. In fact I specifically stated that the UN did not generally pass resolutions of that kind at all. As I have already said, I was responding to a specific point in one of your posts.

That said, the facts are that there have been 100 or so security council resolutions relating to Israel (with numerous others having been vetoed by the United States), a significant number of them which any honest interpreter of the resolutions themselves would conclude refer to serious and illegal (under international law)acts of state violence and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. These facts are quite indisputable.

In my earlier post I already pre-empted the most common response from supporters of Israel to these salient facts: the claim that the United Nations is biased against Israel and anti-semitic.

Furthermore, I think we are all aware that if a resolution were to be put before the UN specifically making something like a state terrorism claim against Israel it would be vetoed in a heartbeat by the United States (or indeed the United Kingdom), so I fail to see the sense of this charade.

I fail to understand how you have missed the point by such a distance. Only a blind fool could not see how the guidelines given describe exactly why Israel is a terrorist state. The guidelines given describe what Israel is and what it does. Is that plain enough for you? Do you understand? The way you write, trying to impress with clever use of large words and all. I didn't expect to have to explain myself in that manner. It must be your observational skills. Do they only apply at a courtroom standard? I suspect so.

Also, "maybe you'd like to take a whack at it".Take a whack at it? I don't think so. I or we will whack "it" out of this universe!

You've not pondered for at moment that Terry and I trawl the internet looking for people like you. You're easy meat, as I have said already. Be careful what you ask for because you will get it, both barrels, so to speak. You're already in trouble and you don't even know it. It's like baiting fish. You'll see...

Beamish: Mussolini stated in 1932: he complete opposite ofMarxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

The UN can't even determine whether the Sudanese in Darfur have been the victims of the UN's definition of "genocide". What gives anybody any confidence that the UNs definition of "terrorism" is any clearer or better?

Farmer: Fascism is unique and misunderstood. Many people think a military dictatorship, or even any rightist government is fascist.

Fascism comes about after the defeat, or lack of leadership of a revolutionary movement. The fascist movement doesn't start as a legitimate state vehicle. It consists of middle class, threatened by both the working class and the capitalist class, and lumpen elements. The leadership takes advantage of their backwardness with contradictory slogans. They are used by the capitalists for the total annihilation of the revolutionary movement. I would say the fascist movement is primarily a combat movement for capitalism, actually not preferred.

The heroes and symbols quotes are only a small part of the essay, neither here nor there in importance.

Mussolini merely made Marxist-derived revolutionary ideology Italian rather than international. His "holies" and "heroics" were indeedsymbolic, as Trotsky correctly identified, but as powerful symbols of the history of Italian culture back to the Roman Empire. All politics are local. Call a leftist conception of historical class struggle an "Italian struggle" and there you are. Mussolini was a pragmatic leftist. He substituted the "workers of the world unite" meme of theoretical Marxism with "workers of Italy unite." Folks in Genoa and Milan didn't give a rat's ass about work conditions and capitalist oppressors in Addis Ababa, but if you get them buzzing about work conditions and capitalist oppressors in and especially of"Italy..." When it was time to shoot the skeet, Mussolini knew what clay pigeons to toss up. Today, Mussolini would be driving a bulldozer through a Wal-Mart for the sake of "mom and pop stores." It's the same class warfare crap.

Frolix22,

China vetoes resolutions against North Korea. Sure, there's some geopolitical alliances involved that keep serious UN resolutions from being passed, but on the other hand, who enforces the serious UN resolutions? Iraq was in material breach of 17 consecutive Article 7 UN resolutions, not a few of them having to do with Iraqi-sponsored (or committed) terrorism. Save for the United States and Britain sometimes, no nation is really "united" with another to implement and enforce a binding "United Nations" resolution. Efforts to give binding UN resolutions authority have been resisted, from the Korean War where we fought China to the current war in Iraq where we're fighting Iran. It it were up to me, I'd demolish the UN charter and shove its bricks up Woodrow Wilson's dessicated ass for being recycled geopolitical timewasting.

Cla,

You and Terry before you keep making the tautological argument that Israel is a terrorist state because Israel is a terrorist state. I look forward to seeing if your second premise also matches your conclusion.

Unless, of course, you want to surprise me with something a bit more substantive, like an example of Israeli action that fits the definition of terrorism you prefer.

Oh please. Somebody drag that "laissez-faire" absolute out into the back yard and put it out of its' misery. There's no more a single "laissez-faire" capitalist in the world as there is a practicing nihilist (excepting perhaps Lessing's son). A "totally free" market doesn't exist...

There are, however, billions of capitalists who lean in the laissez-faire direction. So please, leave the smoke and mirrors and faux-consensus claim backstage with the other rhetorical props.

Laissez-faire is the classical liberal economic position... but only because it needed to stand in opposition to mecantilism. No one ever expected the economic pendulum would swing all the way over to laissez-faire from mercantilism and hang suspended in thin air...

Uuuhh, so what you're saying, Farmer John, is that all the Libertarians and other such self-styled economic conservatives in at least the US are talking bullshit when they preach the laissez-fairre gospel.

Thanks for clearing that up for everybody, though honestly, you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I know laissez-fairre is bullshit, just like I know the current rhetoric about Hitler and Mussolini being "leftist" is just that-bullshit.

And I've absolutely never known of any liberals who believe in total deregulation of the markets, which is a standard feature of laissez-fairre economic philosophy.

Actually, though, I agree with you on one thing. That dog should be put to sleep. When a rabid animal roams free, it's dangerous to society and actually it's somewhat cruel to the beast that's afflicted with the virus.

Beamish: In your world the differences between nationalism and internationalism are rhetorical.

I see a difference. I'm for tearing down the wall at the Mexican border, full amnesty for all. That is different than a nationalist position of strengthen the wall, guest worker programs to keep wages down.

I warned you to be careful what you ask for, didn't I? Yet, you still managed to wander aimlessly into the ambush waiting for you. I have just set you up. Terry will soon knock you down.The examples you ask for are on the way. I hope you can swim...

In your world the differences between nationalism and internationalism are rhetorical.

In my world the differences between nationalism and internationalism are objective. Germans workers will unite the workers of Germany before (and largely instead of) uniting "the workers of the world."

I see a difference. I'm for tearing down the wall at the Mexican border, full amnesty for all. That is different than a nationalist position of strengthen the wall, guest worker programs to keep wages down.

No difference?

I'm for convincing the Mexican people that they ought to align their constitution with that of the United States and apply for annexation as states. Then they can work in the United States without crossing the Rio Grande. We'll bring jobs to them as we develop their vastly untapped resources.

Mine's a minority opinion too.

Pagan Temple,

Beamish believes anybody that is opposed to laissez-fairre capitalism is "leftist".

I warned you to be careful what you ask for, didn't I? Yet, you still managed to wander aimlessly into the ambush waiting for you. I have just set you up. Terry will soon knock you down.The examples you ask for are on the way. I hope you can swim...

"China vetoes resolutions against North Korea. Sure, there's some geopolitical alliances involved that keep serious UN resolutions from being passed, but on the other hand, who enforces the serious UN resolutions? Iraq was in material breach of 17 consecutive Article 7 UN resolutions, not a few of them having to do with Iraqi-sponsored (or committed) terrorism. Save for the United States and Britain sometimes, no nation is really "united" with another to implement and enforce a binding "United Nations" resolution. Efforts to give binding UN resolutions authority have been resisted, from the Korean War where we fought China to the current war in Iraq where we're fighting Iran. It it were up to me, I'd demolish the UN charter and shove its bricks up Woodrow Wilson's dessicated ass for being recycled geopolitical timewasting."

The facts you have stated are broadly correct. The opinions you have expressed are your own.

However, none of the information in this response was of any relevance to my post. In fact you have turned the issue from one of designation to enforcement, an area in which power relationships are even more significant.

I'm not quite decided on where I would put the "Minutemen" border sovereignty movement on the political spectrum. It's not something I've ever put much thought into. Reactionary, perhaps. There is an American nationalism there, for sure, but nothing quite like that of the Russians' anti-Waffen SS policy at the gates of Stalingrad. They're certainly not seeking some "revolutionary" change in the make up and constitution American government (save for perhaps a behavioral one - i.e. enforcement of already existing US immigration and naturalization laws).

On the other hand, I partied like a rock star in Tijuana around 2 months ago and now I feel exploited when I pay a cover charge in an American topless bar, hehehe. But, more to the point, I saw quite a number of Mexican Army / Police units on the streets(from what I could tell the legal distinction between cop and soldier there is blurry if non-existent), ready to clear the streets with their M-16s. I'm fairly certain my entry into their nation without a passport would have been a significant factor in my arrest and detention there if I had been run afoul of their laws. Is Mexico more right-wing than America?

It's all kinda relative I suppose. Which is why the national socialist strain of leftism is a more effective rally than the call of the international socialist strain.

It's the socialism, not the size differences and scope of the target demographic between national and international that makes national socialism leftist.

Would you characterize the Mexican migrant workers who fail to obey US immigration laws and the people who illegally employ them as capitalistic criminals or revolutionaries?

Arguing where Hitler and Stalin were on the political spectrum is a fairly pointless debate unless all parties have already agreed on the attributes of the political spectrum itself, which is certainly not the case here.

While such discussions can, on occasion, be informed and interesting, I find that attempts to redefine Hitler as extreme left or Stalin as extreme right are often motivated by a simple, and some might say childish, desire to make sure all the baddies are on the other side.

We're largely in agreement here, in regards to the geopolitical power relationships and dynamics behind successfully ratifying resolutions (of any type) at the UN.

I've not yet accused Israel-bashers of anti-Semitism, which I define as the dictionary does, "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."

But, I hope you do note that the compositional mix of UN member states that voted to make these non-binding resolutions against Israel that have come since 1955 were not at all themselves representatives of democratically elected governments free of clearly anti-Semitic policies. Most were military dictatorships at the time of their cast "vote from their nation." Many still are.

Anti-Semitism is a double-standard against Jews.

I'll be watching for that in Terry's upcoming Magnum Dopus. I'll let you know if I see it.

"But, I hope you do note that the compositional mix of UN member states that voted to make these non-binding resolutions against Israel that have come since 1955 were not at all themselves representatives of democratically elected governments free of clearly anti-Semitic policies. Most were military dictatorships at the time of their cast "vote from their nation." Many still are."

I have referred only to UN Security Council resolutions: these require the assent of the veto-holding nations including the United States and the United Kingdom.

Arguing where Hitler and Stalin were on the political spectrum is a fairly pointless debate unless all parties have already agreed on the attributes of the political spectrum itself, which is certainly not the case here.

How many dialectical materialists does it take to play a semantics game?

lol. We have been laughing at you since we first arrived here. You really are a fool. Won't be long now. Your dictionary skills will be of no use. lol. Anyway, who are you trying to impress with your needless and incorrect use of large words. I smell an inferiority complex. lol. you are funny...

Fine. And lets do the same with Marx and Trotsky, for there truly only ever was ONE Marxist and one Trotsky-*.

The question you should be trying to answer is "what is the proper balance" between all these "absolute" ideals and not merely condemn the evils of the opposite absolute in its' purest form and then push your argument for said favored ideal "beyond" that balance/ tipping point.

That's the problem with "progressives". They never know when to stop "progressing" us into endless circle of boom and bust.

The Pseudostinians are never going to get their lands in Israel back. They need to move on with their lives. And if life in Israel is soooo bad, they need to leave and go someplace else. They've plenty of Arab countries to choose from.

If you want to help the pseudostinians, stop paying them to sit in refugee camps like you've been doing for the past sixty years. MAKE THEM move on. Encourage Arab governments to "legalize" them just like you want America to legalize the Mexican illegals here. Either that, or encourage them to relocate the Pseudoistinians to countries that do need them. Because there is NO PALESTINE, only a PSEUDOSTINE. And there never will be a viable Pseudostinian state that could live in peace with Israel.

It is not a question of "games". I made a relatively straightforward observation.

I believe there is a game theory involved in all debates. Terry and Cla have done much arguing for the existence of an impending blast of hot air, but not anything in the way of presenting their argument that Israel is a "terrorist state," which I presume doesn't implicate Israel's supplying of the Egyptian ex-patriates in the Gaza Strip the electricity used to machine rockets to bomb Jewish children in Sderot or supplying firearms and armored vehicles to the West Bank terrorists that launched the Second Intifada, but something rather far more innocuous.

That is why my (at this writing) unanswered question of examples of alleged Israeli terrorism that meet the definitions preceeded my question about why the authors of those definitions do not meaningfully apply them to Israel, which was actually intended as a followup to the first question's answer. I'm not aggravated that you skipped the first question. I found your answer to the second question more than satisfactory.

lol. We have been laughing at you since we first arrived here. You really are a fool. Won't be long now. Your dictionary skills will be of no use. lol. Anyway, who are you trying to impress with your needless and incorrect use of large words. I smell an inferiority complex. lol. you are funny...

Thank you, Cla. I'm impressed with you as well. You're adding very much reinforcement to my inclination to prejudge the intelligence of a typical leftist to be rather dismally low without even dirtying your hands with adding anything to the discussion. That takes talent.

"I don't dispute your facts. They're not in question. The UN Security Council has voted to "deplore" Israel on several occasions."

Your statement is not quite correct, actually. The UN Security Council (which obviously includes the assent of the United States and the UK) has condemned the state of Israel for specific actions and deplored specific actions by the state of Israel.

As I have pointed out, these actions constitute serious breaches of international laws accepted by the international community, including the US and the EU, over a long period of time.

The Pseudostinians are never going to get their lands in Israel back. They need to move on with their lives. And if life in Israel is soooo bad, they need to leave and go someplace else. They've plenty of Arab countries to choose from.

Did you just deny a national identity to ex-patriated Arabs in a thread that has primarily dedicated to leftists poo-pooing the idea of national identity, and get criticized for it?

What the fuck are you growing on that farm? Whatever it is, you'd better stop smoking so damn much of it.

In my comment, where the hell did you pick up the idea that I was in favor of "Pseudostinians"? I am not, nor am I in favor of Palestinians-just in case you think I'm playing word games.

Where the hell did you get the idea I am in favor of open borders and in legalizing illegal immigrants? Again, I most definitely am not.

You just proved my point, actually. You people think that anybody that is opposed to laissez-fairre capitalism is a Marxist, or a Trotskyist. Once again, I am none of those.

You accuse me of speaking in absolutes when I spoke of Beamish's laissez-fairre philosophy, so I'll let his own words speak for him.

according to him, it's fine if I smoke bricks of cocaine, so long as he doesn't have to pay for my drug overdose treatments.

There's your libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. He'll probably say he was exaggerating to make a point, but no-that's exactly the way they feel.

Well, I do not, and I seem to feel as though I shouldn't be labelled as a Marxist-or for that matter even as a "progressive"-if I feel otherwise.

Israel and Palestine? Who gives a fuck? Let them work that out. If they can't, it's no shit to me, as long as they ain't bringing their fucking bullshit in my face.

Immigration? I almost fell out of my chair when I read that shit. I think the borders should be enforced, immigration should be stopped, anybody that's here illegally should be rounded up and shipped back in trains and cattle cars, the US military should be brought back from all around the world and stationed at the border, and if American workers can't be found in sufficient numbers to pick the crops, they can make robots to do it.

That way, if I ever buy some of that shit you're growing on that fucked up farm you got, I can smoke it without having to worry about catching e coli from where Julio decides to take a shit and then wipe his hands with his ass before he goes back to picking it.

I decided back during the immigration debate, that anyone that supported the immigration reform bill, I would vote against or oppose in any way, regardless of their party affiliation or despite their stands on any other issue.

Similarly, I decided that anybody that opposed the immigration reform bill, I would vote for them or otherwise support them, regardless of their party affiliation or their stands on any other issue.

So now, what do you have to say, Hayseed Calhoun? Do you think perhaps an apology might be in order? Or is being a man and admitting you shot your mouth off without knowing the facts against the laissez-fairre credo as well?

Frolix got it right. This horseshit about Hitler being a leftist and Stalin being a rightwinger is nothing but a childish bunch of "got'cha" bullshit.

So since I'm agreeing with a leftist on something, I guess that means I'm in favor of killing all the kulaks, huh?

I'm sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately, I have many other commitments and, unlike your good self, I'm not on AIPAC's payroll. I do this in my spare time because I'm committed to the truth. Some of us know your true motivations. It's funny how things work out.

You talk shit with such elegance, as I've pointed out several times, yet your spiel lacks conviction and substance. This is demonstrated by the fact that you did not really respond to my last, quite lengthy, comment, apart from having a few pathetic swipes and doing, really, everything I expected you to do. Predictability is you strong point. You have simply continued with your diatribe and attempted to flex your peuseo-linguistic knowledge. I wonder, do you understand the term hyperlexia?

The following statement, made by your good self, is an example of hyperlexia:

'You and Terry before you keep making the tautological argument that Israel is a terrorist state because Israel is a terrorist state.' (Mr Beamish:2007)

Hyperlexia?

The lengthiest response you gave was actually regarding sexuality, another symptom of your apparent insecurities. I made the comment about the small size of your penis based upon viewing your blog. I'm sure anyone with an inkling of knowledge about basic psychology can visit your blog and witness a rampant display of repressed homosexuality, coupled with anxiety regarding the size of one's manhood. It's the gas masks and cold steel, Mr Beamish. It's the pictures of shirtless, musclebound heroes, Mr Beamish. It's the motif of the missile, the ultimate phallus, and even images of men astride missiles, Mr Beamish. It's the overall fetishistic tribute to the military, Mr Beamish.

Your subconscious speaks volumes.

As for my sexuality: say what you will. How do you know I'm even male? I'm very secure in myself. Think what you will. Imagine anything: I really don't care. In you, it's simply a weakness to be exploited. I'm sure you are familiar with exploitation. But let's not base our discussion on sexuality. Let me help you dig that hole.

Before we begin, we must remember that the pretext for this argument is based on the aforementioned and mutually agreed definitions for terrorism.

Israel is a terrorist state because:

Frolix22 has already put you straight to some extent and so Frolix22's comment stand as article 1. Frolix22 has also noted your inability to respond to the statement which is further evidence towards either ignorance or ulterior motives on your part.

For article two, I will whisper only the words - the Mossad.

For article three:There are so many examples of terrorist atrocities committed by the state of Israel that I will not dishonor the dead by reducing them to numbers in lists. I will give you a single case study amongst hundreds:

The Qana Massacre, 2006: An Israeli Terrorist Attack

1. The victims of an Israeli missile attack were civilians, mostly children and the elderly. Here are their names:

2. The intended target, a suspected Hizbollah position, was 800 metres to the south of the houses targeted by the missile. Just another Israeli mistake? Please!

A detailed map is available here:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12936

3. The following is an image of a headless Lebanese baby caught up in the assault. Do you condone this? Are you having a bout of laughter?http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/images/960418_qana_headless_child.jpg

THIS IS A TERRORIST ATTACK COMMITTED BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL AGAINST UNARMED CIVILIANS.

The state of Israel employed “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

To be more precise:The state of Israel used 'the unlawful use of force and violence' against persons and property 'to intimidate' and 'coerce' the 'civilian population' in 'furtherance of political or social objectives'. These objectives were based on instilling fear, dismantling popular support for Hizbollah and continuing Israel's colonial grand strategy to destabilize Lebanese society.

In relation, Israel also committed a terrorist attack in the town of Qana know as Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996. Read the account by Independent correspondent Robert Fisk.http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html

That's two accounts. Plenty of evidence and lots, lots more where that came from. Explain yourself.

And I don't give a crap about Israel and the Pseudostinian's either. I've had to listen to their bickering and BS arguments about how unfair their lives have been for my entire life, and I'm getting too old for talk of 'perpetual revolutions'. They should have move on with their lives starting sixty years ago. That they haven't is a monument to Western and UN stupidity.

I find it odd how not many people seemed to have understood the article. Where does it advocate anti-Semitism? It is in fact against an indiscriminate boycott of Israel. I think the article makes a lot of sense, and unlike a lot of leftists (many who nonsensically assert that Israel is one reactionary bloc that must simply be destroyed.), this article offers a good class analysis.

As a leftist, I don't believe any one of us has said that 'Israel is one reactionary bloc that must simply be destroyed'. That's a little extreme.

You are correct in pointing out that none of us, from left and right, have engaged with the actual article. This has descended into a debate about Israel, terrorism and fascism.

The article does not 'advocate antisemitism' and I don't believe anyone who has posted has advocated antisemitism. There have been a few anti-zionist comments but that is a different issue.

In any discussion of Israel it is usually best to preempt accusations of antisemitism beforehand as this is the most frequent defence, as frolix22 demonstrated by preempting this claim regarding the perspective of the UN.

Of course genuine antisemitism must be deplored, buy you must agree that we need to maintain perspective and not blur the boundaries between separate issues.

Apology accepted and appreciated. Yeah, as far as the Palestinian/Israeli thing goes, I personally think they should BOTH move on. If they can't settle their differences amicably, they should settle them any way they can without any help or interference from the US.

As far as the "Holy Land" argument goes, fuck that, that's not my problem, hang-up, or delusion. Nothing against Israelis, or the Jews in general, but if they can't hold up on their own without our help, I guess that pretty much proves the Bible is a crock of shit. That, or Uncle Sam must be "God".

I just want the US to go back to George Washington's formula. Stay the fuck out of other nation's affairs, and keep them the fuck out of ours. One day the people are going to rise up and demand that, and the consequences if we aren't adhered to, is going to be bloody. On the upside, it's also going to be fun.

For the time being, they are too busy paving the way for giant corporations to play straw boss of the Chinese slave plantations, all for the benefit of no one but the Chinese government, the corporations, and their butt buddy lobbyists and the ones in Congress.

The working class of America, as always, gets the fucking shaft.

That's all the immigration bullshit was about, a way to get more fucking slave labor for the Republican's big business overlords, and cheap votes for the Democrats. The Republicans that supported it didn't care about the votes for Democrats, all they saw was those fucking dollar signs in the here and now.

They could care less that we would be on our way to eventually becoming another fucking third world country if that Immigration "Reform" Bill had passed. They would be living high on the hog in Switzerland or wherever the fuck by then.

So see, you can approach this from a position of left or right. I'm an old fashioned independent myself. I think that labels like "leftist" and "right-winger" serve only one purpose-divide and conquer for the benefit of the elites who "lead" both sides (by the nose).

Sonia:"By your defition [definition?] of terrorism, EVERYBODY waging war is a terrorist. And so the word has no meaning anymore..."

NO SONIA!? You really don't learn do you? Are you just a little rich girl with a big mouth and no brain? I can smell it.

Perhaps it's best if you shut the fuck up and go back to evaluating Eurotrash films on a beach somewhere.

Dresden was also a terrorist attack, Germans or not, and the British are actually coming to terms with that atrocity. In fact, it is widely acknowledged in academic circles that Dresden was a crime against humanity. The allies turned an entire city into an inferno.

Are you proud of that too? Are you sick in the fucking head?

I've tried to tolerate you as Renegade said as you fight for free speech, but I'm finding it very difficult. You have nothing valuable to say other than rampant, aggressive comments that have no relationship with reality.

Farmer John:To speak as a Proletarian:

You're a racist, insular prick with no morality or humanity whatsoever. I hope you choke on a fucking beefburger.

You make me ashamed of my species, never mind my race. And to think that we share some kind of genetic heritage. You are an insult to the human species.

You people are sick! You make me sick! Argue over definitions all you want. You are racist, you are ignorant, you are uneducated, you are bigoted. You are the biggest obstacle to progress on this planet.

You don't understand diplomacy. You don't understand debate. It is pointless. But you understand this: fuck you! And one day you will understand much more.

Fucking Zionists! Your an insult to your own people. It's clear to see, you condone the TERRORIST STATE of ISRAEL and it's TERRORIST actions. You don't deserve to share this planet with the rest of us decent humans. Go back to rich ass Daddy and have him feed you some more Bullshit about the "evil muslims". You fucking racist!

Young Israeli girls signing missiles, ready to be fired in retaliation to ROCKS being THROWN. You must be ever so proud. You're sick, really!

Farmer John,

Just another simple fuck you, for a simple minded man. I'd love to continue this battle of wit, but I can see you are clearly unarmed. So, I won't bother.

They've condoned, even applauded, the murder of 14 INNOCENT CHILDREN. Farmer John thinks it's amusing. What a pathetic example of man.

Case closed, Clau. I'm sure any reader can see that they're simple minded racists with nothing in mind but self-interest. These lot have to go at the top of the list for the most deluded idiots in cyberspace.

Guess what? Farmer John is part of the gas-mask, military fetish crew. What a surprise! And he THINKS he has an interest in Nietzsche?! Hahhahahahahaha!!

Some of us ARE born posthumously, but not you John. You can't even find the path, never mind the mountain.

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised LandProduced by Bathsheba Ratzkoff, Sut Jhally and Media Education Foundation.(79mins) Hosted at Google Video.- An expose of the media cover-up regarding Palestine and the Israeli occupation.http://messageinamatrix.wordpress.com/2006/09/04/peace-propaganda-the-promised-land/

Prisoners of Israel: Torture and Concentration CampsProduced by ifamericansknew.org(50mins) Hosted at Google Video.- the inhuman treatment of Palestinians under Israeli occupation.http://messageinamatrix.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/prisoners-of-israel-torture-and-concentration-camps/

From a purely philosophical point of view this statement is actually an interesting development.

In any discourse such as this one the arguments generally take place within a framework of basic moral concepts and broadly shared values. If one party in the debate makes it clear they are actually abandoning one or more of those core values then there is pretty much nothing that one party can say to the other which can gain any traction. The debate breaks free from the anchor provided by those broadly shared values.

For example, if somebody shares your value of justice then you can debate with them as to whether something is unjust. If they do not recognise justice as a value then this becomes impossible; and it is next to impossible to argue someone into accepting justice as a value.

My own view is that those who do boldly reject broadly shared values rarely take into account the implications of such moves. But I think I am probably getting unnecessarily technical here.

I've tried to keep that as dispassionate as possible. I won't comment specifically on FJ's statement other than to make the elementary observation that it is basically equivalent to "Might=Right".

I'm sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately, I have many other commitments and, unlike your good self, I'm not on AIPAC's payroll. I do this in my spare time because I'm committed to the truth. Some of us know your true motivations. It's funny how things work out.

Isn't it though? I mean, I can understand why a guy like you would be pressed for time, what with the boss and all keeping you up late on weekends because you can't seem to avoid fundamental logical fallacies in any of your arguments, either online or with him about why the "professionally trained linguist with expertise in logic" line on your resume isn't bullshit (no matter how many times you point out that you underlined it with crayon...) Suck it up, wage slave.

Now that we've said hello, let see if your beauty rest paid off with some money examples of terrorism commited by Israel....

Before we begin, we must remember that the pretext for this argument is based on the aforementioned and mutually agreed definitions for terrorism.

I'm hip.

Israel is a terrorist state because:

Frolix22 has already put you straight to some extent and so Frolix22's comment stand as article 1. Frolix22 has also noted your inability to respond to the statement which is further evidence towards either ignorance or ulterior motives on your part.

Huh? I responded and agreed with Frolix22's answers to my second question about why none of the authors of the stated definitions of terrorism cite Israeli actions as examples. I agreed with Frolix22 until he rolled up all fetal position and began sucking his thumb. I suppose it was the agreement that unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism should be avoided that really did him in.

Nonetheless Frolix22, like you, have to date totally avoided my request for a specific example of Israel's "terrorism."

We all three know why.

For article two, I will whisper only the words - the Mossad.

And in response, I will whisper only "psst. Cla told me you were bringing a devastating argument. Was he / she lying?"

For article three:There are so many examples of terrorist atrocities committed by the state of Israel that I will not dishonor the dead by reducing them to numbers in lists. I will give you a single case study amongst hundreds...

When?

The Qana Massacre, 2006: An Israeli Terrorist Attack

1. The victims of an Israeli missile attack were civilians, mostly children and the elderly. Here are their names:

2. The intended target, a suspected Hizbollah position, was 800 metres to the south of the houses targeted by the missile. Just another Israeli mistake? Please!

Ah, the Hezbollah propaganda incident with the apartment building that magically collapses into rubble hours well after allegedly being hit with two Israeli missiles without anyone inside noticing.

Not only is this at best a war-time "collateral damage" incident, at worst Israel doesn't even actually have a hand in the demolition of the building!

Even you concede that Israel missed its intended target.

Regardless, Israel immediately suspended its air campaign over ALL of Lebanon to allow the civilians more time to flee Hezbollah's violation of Geneva Convention rules concerning the use of residential homes as missile launcher sites - missiles that generally fell on the Israeli civilian homes, schools, hospitals, and railroad stations Hezbollah lobbed them at.

Not exactly an act of terrorism. Likely a staged event on Hezbollah's part.

You are going to windbag your way to an actual, incontrovertable example of Israel's alleged terrorism sometime this week, yes?

In relation, Israel also committed a terrorist attack in the town of Qana know as Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996. Read the account by Independent correspondent Robert Fisk.http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html

Let me guess, we're to believe this account is totally evidence of Israeli terrorism because Robert Fiskie said so?

That's two accounts. Plenty of evidence and lots, lots more where that came from. Explain yourself.

Which two of the 4 "accounts" above (your endorsement of Frolix22's thumbsucking; the name of Israel's intelligence agency; the magically collapsing apartment building that Israel never targeted; or whatever good ol' Fiskie had to say) are you refering to? Seems you count two more "accounts of Israeli terrorism" than I do.

I can't reiterate enough how much interest I have in seeing even just one specific example of an action by Israel that justifies labelling them a terrorist state.

Blah, blah, blah. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why did you bother? That was an utterly pathetic response! Far weaker than I expected.

What a joke you are. You're really making a fool of yourself Miss Beamish. I know your arrogance (and that pathetic superiority complex) mean that you decide what is true, but, as always, the reader will see quite clearly which one of us is correct and which one of us is brimming with shit.

Miss Beamish, your breath is starting to reek!

As I already suspected, you're a useless windbag with nothing valuable to say. Such as:

'Not exactly an act of terrorism. Likely a staged event on Hezbollah's part.'

Zionist propaganda. You scum bag. Forgot about the tautology too? Israel's not a terrorist because Israel's not a terrorist state?

I'm glad you can copy and paste and create semi-witty remarks. Very elusive. Very uninteresting.

Where's your argument? Where's your evidence? Perhaps there isn't any. Judging off you profile where you state the Encyclopedia Britannica as one of your favourite books (duh!) then I'm not surprised you have such a narrow intellect. I bet you use Wikipedia regularly. You're whats called a 'surface learner' meaning that you have no real grasp of the epistemological foundations behind a concept. You have no substance and that's why you've made such a fool of yourself.

For the THIRD time in this post: Where do you get your information from? What TV news network do you rely upon? Which newspapers do you read?

I have given more than what you asked for. My main objective is complete, Miss Beamish: I've exposed you for the racist propagandist that you are. You're an AIPAC lobbyist. Now, go suck up to your boss and tell him you've failed Zion. BTW, do you get paid per comment or is it a flat rate?

(Evidence?)

Your reactions are merely natural responses to a larger predator and imminent doom, just like the worm wriggles on the hook. Since I really am a fully qualified linguist (1st class Hons) with a fantastic career and the respect of my peers and you are - well, you're nothing but a racist with a fetish for the military and internet access - then I suppose it's easy to see where we stand.

(Evidence?)

No evidence. No explanations. No response. No engagement. No understanding. The Dim World of Miss Beamish - the (Repressed Homosexual) Hyperlexic.

If you choose to actually ENGAGE and RESPOND to my argument then I'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, we can continue to sling shit at one another. Or, take my advice and crawl back under your rock.

(Evidence?)

You're not doing a good job of mopping the floor Miss Beamish. It's a mess. But look. Look closer. It's you splashed all over the floor! No wonder you couldn't mop up - you've spilled your guts everywhere and pissed your pants!

You're quite the hypocrite. I wounder, can you see it? You're doing exactly what you once accused us of. You now deny Israel is a terrorist state, by the guidelines of the UN, merely because "you say so". So, I'll ask again. Evidence please Ms Beamish. We've given you some, its your turn, Bitch!

You're quite the hypocrite. I wounder, can you see it? You're doing exactly what you once accused us of. You now deny Israel is a terrorist state, by the guidelines of the UN, merely because "you say so". So, I'll ask again. Evidence please Ms Beamish. We've given you some, its your turn, Bitch!

I do not deny Israel is a terrorist because "I say so." I deny Israel is a terrorist state because no persuasive evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Dresden was also a terrorist attack, Germans or not, and the British are actually coming to terms with that atrocity. In fact, it is widely acknowledged in academic circles that Dresden was a crime against humanity. The allies turned an entire city into an inferno.

Well, if Dresden is a terrorist attack, then so is Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Coventry, London, Belgrade and every other act of war in history.

The point being that Israel's actions are no different from those of any other nation at war.

'I do not deny Israel is a terrorist because "I say so." I deny Israel is a terrorist state because no persuasive evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Shift the burden of proof to the negation?'

Exactly! You're an idiot.

I deny Israel is NOT a terrorist state because no persuasive evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Okay, hand count. Is Beamish familiar with logic whatsoever?

And, for the FOURTH time in this post: Where do you get your information from? What TV news network do you rely upon? Which newspapers do you read?

If you choose to actually ENGAGE and RESPOND to my argument then I'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, we can continue to sling shit at one another.

Don't slip in your own shit when you manage stand up again.

Sonia:

Think before you speak. I'll break it down as much as possible and reduce the concept for you, as though I'm talking to a child.

An act of War is committed against a military target. An act of terrorism is committed against a civilian target. However, in wartime a terrorist act is a war crime and in peace time it is simply terrorism.

Simple.

Do you understand, Sonia? Of course as you already mentioned earlier, the victor writes history and it's not always the 'good' guys. Just as the loser often faces persecution, the victors, say the Allied powers, are not going to put themselves on trial (for Dresden of Hiroshima) now are they?

Come one Sonia! I don't want to convert you or impose my beliefs upon you. I simply want reasonable debate.

I deny Israel is NOT a terrorist state because no persuasive evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Okay, hand count. Is Beamish familiar with logic whatsoever?

Certainly. What part of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; Part 3, Article 1, Section 28 do you not understand?

It reads "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

Your argument before the Hague Court is that:

Israel is a terrorist state because a bomb you fully concede was meant for Hezbollah target some 2400 feet away hit the world's most sturdy apartment building ever - the people inside were taken by surprise by its collapse upon them eight hours later - and further that civilian structures should be accorded protected status as long at the party responsible for maintaining that protected status (by not violating 3:1:28) "didn't shoot any rockets at Israel from Qana that day."

In quite diplomatic terms, I'm sure, the Hague Court would laugh you back to your unfulfilling wage slave job, where even come home to relax and read words typed on your screen toss you into incoherent rages.

I'm being nice. I just want you to give me evidence of an act of Israeli terrorism.

No, no, no, little man. You will respond to my requests and I will answer you when I choose, not at your request. You're not my superior, you condescending little gimp. Do you understand this, little man?

'the world's most sturdy apartment building ever'EVIDENCE?

'the people inside were taken by surprise by its collapse upon them eight hours later'EVIDENCE?

'civilian structures should be accorded protected status as long at the party responsible for maintaining that protected status (by not violating 3:1:28) "didn't shoot any rockets at Israel from Qana that day."'

EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE?

AND I'M NOT IN THE HAGUE AND NEITHER ARE YOU!!! WE ARE ON A BLOG, YOU MUPPET!!! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

I'm being nice. I just want you to give me evidence that justifies Israel's actions against unarmed civilians. Israeli terrorism.

Just one piece of evidence will do.

Come on, hurry up, little man!

You still slipping around in that puddle?

And, for the FIFTH time in this post: Where do you get your information from? What TV news network do you rely upon? Which newspapers do you read?

If you choose to actually ENGAGE and RESPOND to my argument then I'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, we can continue to sling shit at one another.

"I do not deny Israel is a terrorist because "I say so." I deny Israel is a terrorist state because no persuasive evidence has been presented to the contrary".

Simple question. How would you describe missile attacks on unarmed babies, young children and elderly people? These innocent people were NOT armed and they were clearly NOT fighting. Another question you won't answer. How is that anything to do with war? Another, how is that NOT a terrorist attack, by the UN definition? Again, are you just stupid? For this awful scene of terrorism, to be an unfortunate act of war, is ridiculous. That's your claim? Your basis of your whole argument? and nothing more? You once claimed we had nothing more than that shit, but it seems just fine for you. Again bitch, you're nothing but a racist, hypocritical, uneducated, untalented, parasite, with no argument and nothing at all really, other than a deep repressed homosexuality and inferiority complex to ones manhood.

You have clearly lost!

Hope I didn't spoil the movie. Is Top Gun your favorite film? I bet it is, isn't it sweetheart? Lots of muscle bound army boys and locker room scenes. lol. You're so Gay and it's so repressed. It's funny to me how you were so quick to respond about your penis and not to being Gay. Bit too close to the bone, eh?

That'll be all. Thanks a lot sweetheart, you were real good fun, but a little easy.

Please stop accusing me of being an AIPAC employee because I disagree with you. That's anti-Semitic.

Please stop accusing Israel of being a "terrorist state" because one of their bombs may have struck civilians that had lost their protected status under international law due to Hezbollah's violation of the 4th Geneva Protocol 3:1:28. That's just fucking goofy.

You want to blame someone for the tragic deaths of those Lebanese civilians? Blame Hezbollah for turning their town into a rocket base.

Since you're obviously weak of game and of meaningful content, you won't mind if I just ignore your post-defeat pep rally until you're actually prepared to present evidence of Israeli terrorism, will you?

Terry has provided you with many more grounds of evidence. You managed to write them off so quickly. How could you have possibly have read them all so soon? You didn't, did you? How can you really comment furthermore? This really is too easy...

That's a different tone than when you are throwing your weight around.

So, you've just added yourself a new pile of overdue responses:

1. Explain why accusing you of being an AIPAC employee is antisemitic? Bullshit! That's because YOU ARE an AIPAC employee.

2. "Please stop accusing Israel of being a "terrorist state" because one of their bombs may have struck civilians that had lost their protected status under international law due to Hezbollah's violation of the 4th Geneva Protocol 3:1:28. That's just fucking goofy."

BULLSHIT. EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. Answer my questions as I answered yours.

You keep mentioning only Lebanon. What about the Palestinians? Same argument?

"You want to blame someone for the tragic deaths of those Lebanese civilians? Blame Hezbollah for turning their town into a rocket base."

Nope, I don't want to 'blame' anyone. I oppose the Israeli occupation of foreign territories. I do not think Israel should be dismantled. I have no ill will towards the Israeli people. I oppose the actions of their government as I oppose the actions of the American government.I know what I'm talking about, despite your attempts at misinformation.

"Since you're obviously weak of game and of meaningful content"

Poor excuse! Everyone has witnessed your obliteration! You should be ashamed.

"you won't mind if I just ignore your post-defeat pep rally until you're actually prepared to present evidence of Israeli terrorism, will you?"

Do what you will. You are free and I believe that EVERY HUMAN BEING has the right to freedom. Do what you will.

I did provide a definition of terrorism and an example. You wrote it off with rhetoric based on your own opinion which is clearly evident.

YET AGAIN:

And, for the FIFTH time in this post: Where do you get your information from? What TV news network do you rely upon? Which newspapers do you read?

YOU RESPOND TO ME. I HAVE RESPONDED IN DEPTH TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AND PROVIDED BOTH EVIDENCE AND REFERENCES. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING BUT MINOR WIT.

If you choose to actually ENGAGE and RESPOND to my argument then I'll be happy to continue this discussion. Until then, we can continue to sling shit at one another.

"Enough with the opinion articles and gainsaying."YOUR OPINION. IRRELEVENT. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER ME! GET OVER YOURSELF.

"Do you have EVIDENCE of Israeli terrorism as defined by the definitions we agreed upon, or not."I'M STILL AWAITING YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ORIGINAL PREMISE AND THE NUMEROUS COUNTS OF EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE PROVIDED.

HAVE YOU READ/WATCHED IT ALL?

"The 4th Geneva Protocol 3:1:28 shut your dumbass down 57 years ago.

Stay dead, Hitler."

FOR FUCK SAKE! WHAT A COP OUT! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. THAT REALLY SHOWS THE TRUE LEVEL OF YOUR INTELLECT BEHIND THE JIBBER JABBER.

Honestly, Beamish, white flag in the air, you have deeply contradicted yourself. I'm aking for a debate. I did what you asked and I waited for your response. You gave me nothing but rhetoric. Not a single source, reference or exterior response other than your own.

You're beaten! Learn from your mistakes (I have learned from this) and at least be a man and have some dignity by acknowledging the truth.

Another observation for you, sweetheart. It's remarkable to see the difference in your comments, when you're put under pressure of timely response. You go from using enormous words, needlessly, to saying "That's just fucking goofy". What wrong sweetheart? Not enough time to consult your thesaurus? Or, copy and paste from some source you won't disclose for obvious reasons? You're a joke and your now drowning. Remember, I said I hope you can swim. Hook line and sinker, sweetheart. Hook line and sink-her!

BEAMISH SAID:"Regardless, Israel immediately suspended its air campaign over ALL of Lebanon to allow the civilians more time to flee Hezbollah's violation of Geneva Convention rules concerning the use of residential homes as missile launcher sites - missiles that generally fell on the Israeli civilian homes, schools, hospitals, and railroad stations Hezbollah lobbed them at."

SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM WITH CREDIBLE SECONDARY SOURCES AS I HAVE DONE. THAT IS STANDARD ACADEMIC PRACTICE.

The boss isn't getting any more convinced that that line on your resume about being a "professionally trained linguist with expertise in logic" isn't totally bullshit, is he? What color crayon did you underline it with?

I have asked you numerous times to provide evidence of Israel qualifying for the definitions of "terrorism" we agreed on.

Asking me what news sources I rely upon so you can play a predictable and irrelevant spot-the-Jew game on their upper management crew like a "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" thumping skin-headed fucktard, isn't getting you there.

Making anti-Semitic assertions about me being an "AIPAC employee" isn't getting you there.

Citing dubious opinion pieces and book titles with forwards from polemical hacks like Chomsky isn't getting you there.

Lashing out in spittle soaked spasms at myself and other commenters who don't share your strange view that "the adequate position would be to condemn both sides if you do not support terrorism" isn't getting you there.

Citing the tragedy of wartime civilian deaths in areas where those civilians' protected status under international law has been voided by one of the "parties of the conflict" taking up positions among them, such as your Qana "massacre" example, isn't getting you there.

Waving pom-poms and pretending to be more than one commenter isn't getting you there.

You think we are the same person? Wow! Your more stupid than I thought. Check our IP's we are both online now. How would one person do that, you fool? We are friends not the same person, you thick shit. Honestly, check for yourself. Yet again your observational skills fail you.

Oh my word, you are a grade A prick. THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO IN AN HOUR? AIPAC should fire you. Another spate of weak willed, half arsed accusation from a defeated man.

This is getting boring:

1. The boss isn't getting any more convinced that that line on your resume about being a "professionally trained linguist with expertise in logic" isn't totally bullshit, is he? What color crayon did you underline it with?

OK WHATEVER! I GET PAID LOADS. I AM HAPPY. THINK WHAT YOU WILL. BOO HOO! GET OVER THE JEALOUSY BECAUSE YOUR EDUCATION CAME FROM WIKIPEDIA. THINK WHAT YOU WILL. I HARD CARE WHAT A RACIST PRICK THINKS ABOUT MY LIFE. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY AND I DO. TOUGH SHIT.

2. I have asked you numerous times to provide evidence of Israel qualifying for the definitions of "terrorism" we agreed on.

I HAVE. SEVERAL OF THEM. YOU'RE EITHER IGNORANT OR STUPID OR BOTH. ANSWER MY DEMANDS YOU LITTLE WORM?

YOU STARTED THAT GAME. CHECK BACK TO SEE. IT IS ON THE RECORD. ANOTHER LIE THAT ANYONE CAN EASILY VERIFY. YOU JUST DO NOT LIKE BEING ROUGHED UP WHEN YOU HAVE NO ADVANTAGE. YOU PREY ON OTHERS AND YOU WRIGGLE LIKE A WEASEL WHEN THE TABLES ARE TURNED.

4. Asking me what news sources I rely upon so you can play a predictable and irrelevant spot-the-Jew game on their upper management crew like a "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" thumping skin-headed fucktard, isn't getting you there.

BULLSHIT.MORE BLATANT PRESUPPOSITION. THE PROTOCOLS ARE PROPAGANDA DESIGNED BY THE RUSSIANS. YOU'D HAVE TO BE STUPID TO BELIEVE IN THEIR AUTHENTICITY. I'M NOT A NAZI. I'VE BEEN QUITE AGGRESSIVE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE RACISM OF OTHERS, WHICH, AGAIN, IS ON RECORD FOR ALL TO SEE.

I WANTED TO KNOW THAT TO DETERMINE YOUR WORLD VIEW. NOTHING SINISTER, LITTLE MAN.

5. Making anti-Semitic assertions about me being an "AIPAC employee" isn't getting you there.

YOU ARE AN AIPAC EMPLOYEE! CALLING YOU AN AIPAC EMPLOYEE IS NOT ANTISEMITISM AND CERTAINLY NOT BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF. SOMETHING YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO.

6. Citing dubious opinion pieces and book titles with forwards from polemical hacks like Chomsky isn't getting you there.

ANOTHER IRRELEVANT, WORTHLESS OPINION. YOU MEAN PROFESSOR CHOMSKY. I'M AFRAID THEY ARE ALL CREDIBLE RESOURCES. I SET EXAM PAPERS, I MARK ASSIGNMENTS. I KNOW WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD.

COMMENT NULL AND VOID DIPSHIT.

7. Lashing out in spittle soaked spasms at myself and other commenters who don't share your strange view that "the adequate position would be to condemn both sides if you do not support terrorism" isn't getting you there.

ANOTHER USELESS OPINION AND AN EXAMPLE OF YOU SPEAKING FOR OTHERS YET AGAIN. IRRELEVANT.

8. Citing the tragedy of wartime civilian deaths in areas where those civilians' protected status under international law has been voided by one of the "parties of the conflict" taking up positions among them, such as your Qana "massacre" example, isn't getting you there.

MISREPRESENTATION. THE DEBATE NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. HOW DOES THAT WORK?

9. Waving pom-poms and pretending to be more than one commenter isn't getting you there.

DIFFERENT PEOPLE. ASK REN TO CHECK THE IP'S. YOU'LL BE PROVEN TO BE WRONG YET AGAIN.

10. Did I miss anything?

YES. YES. YES. YOU YET AGAIN FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING THAT I HAVE ASKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THE READER, WHO WILL BE THE FINAL ARBITER, CAN CLEARLY SEE THIS.

YOU ARE A PRICK.

YOU'RE A WASTE OF TIME AND ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE, WEASEL LIKE SCUMBAG THAT I'VE EVER MET.

RESPOND TO MY FUCKING STATEMENTS WITH EVIDENCE YOU LITTLE SHIT. DO YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY?

Your last comment took you about an hour and you still returned with nothing but wild accusations of antisemitism. The last comment of any verbally defeated Zionist. I too, like Terry, have no ill feelings towards Jewish people. Just Zionists. They ARE NOT the same thing. Don't play that card. It's embarrassing.

BEAMISH SAID:"Regardless, Israel immediately suspended its air campaign over ALL of Lebanon to allow the civilians more time to flee Hezbollah's violation of Geneva Convention rules concerning the use of residential homes as missile launcher sites - missiles that generally fell on the Israeli civilian homes, schools, hospitals, and railroad stations Hezbollah lobbed them at."

SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM WITH CREDIBLE SECONDARY SOURCES AS I HAVE DONE. THAT IS STANDARD ACADEMIC PRACTICE.